Monday, September 19, 2011

It's bad enough the NDP are letting other candidates run

September 2nd: Thomas Mulcair says he won't run for the leadership of the NDP unless the party agrees to hold its convention in late winter or early spring, because he wouldn't be able to compete in a short race.

September 19th: [Muclair] told reporters on Monday that he has truly not decided if he will throw his hat into the ring because the numbers for a Quebec candidate do not add up well. Although the majority of New Democrat MPs are from Quebec, “Quebec is the only province that does not have a provincial wing of the NDP,” said Mr. Mulcair.

I've spent the last hour wracking my brain to come up with a rationale for how Mulcair's musings might help him in this contest, but can't think of anything.

12 Comments:

Maybe he's just being honest?

I really don't know why he is so concerned he might lose. Would it hurt his ego that bad? Even looking at the recent history of the Liberal Party, the two losers to Stephane Dion have both gotten to lead the party anyway - so it could be good for Thomas Mulcair to run.

Perhaps I also don't know enough about Quebec politics, but is now not the perfect time to (re-)start a Quebec NDP wing? I don't think there's much in the way of federalist left-wing parties there, so it could carve its own niche, and counter the growing influence of Francois Legault's non-existent party. Maybe talk is happening and Mulcair wants to lead that party (although he seemed comfortably as a Quebec Liberal cabinet member)?

Maybe some in the party really don't like him and are discouraging him.

...that he has truly not decided if he will throw his hat into the ring because the numbers for a Quebec candidate do not add up well...

Which is odd since both declared candidates - Topp and Saganash -are from Quebec.

Mulcair got his preferred timeline. Now this? Okay, we get it. He was looking for a structural out all along knowing he'd always lose in the end on his style and likability.

But both these events also show he would NOT have been a good leader anyway. Does not have the decisiveness to be PM. Sometimes in politics and perhaps rarely do you control anything. These sort of public musings rarely endear you to voters. They see it a sign of weakness...of being wishy washy.

I think you're spot on. It's not enough for a dipper to lose - he must be the victim of something or other.

But of course once you've identified a victim class, you must create a remedy - perhaps an affirmative action program for MPs from Quebec who are poor organizers and are disliked by both the party elite and the rank and file.

Perhaps to compensate for his victimization, each vote for Mulcair should count as four?